Expediency vs transparency

One of the 'saving graces' that should have gained much more respect for MEPA was the thrust to bring the whole planning process into the public domain. I have always believed that the only way to control discrimination - whether the result of abuse or negligence - is to ensure that all the steps in the process are open to public scrutiny with the naming of every person who made recommendations or took decisions.

In other words, I do not believe that there are any actual or prospective MEPA officials who are super-beings with the moral rectitude of angels who do not suffer from the defects and frailties of mere mortals.

Over the years since the Planning Authority was set up, I have noticed a gradual shift from that idea, mostly for MEPA's internal political (with a small 'p') expediency.

Among other things, I would care to mention:

¤ The anonymity of the Development Planning Application (DPA) reports that makes it impossible to hold anyone responsible for the blatant discrimination between one report and another. It is said that the report is not just compiled by one person as the draft of the Planning Officer is then edited (sometimes heavily) by the Area Manager. In that case, the Area Manager should take responsibility for it and sign it.

¤ The change in policy regarding accessibility of files. Up to some time ago, anyone was allowed to view any MEPA development application file. This right was then restricted to architects acting on behalf of their clients. Claiming that there was no legal provision giving this right, today an architect can only view a permit and the approved drawings. Why? MEPA wants to 'protect' anyone who enters a minute in such files, so that it has now become more difficult to quote what was good for the goose and apply it for the gander!

¤ The way some discussions on permit applications are carried out in DCC meetings that are, by law, public hearings. As a result of the lack - intentional or otherwise - of a proper microphone system, some DCC members tend to make their point by whispering in each other's ears or even explaining their views to the chairman in such a low pitch that it makes a mockery of the very idea of a public hearing.

¤ The practice adopted by the DCC of referring certain applications to the 'executive committee' for guidance. While one can see the point of the setting up of the executive committee, this still remains an internal MEPA administrative tool that has no statutory power and its meetings are not held in public. When decisions that should be taken in public hearings by the DCC are taken in private by the executive committee, both the spirit and the letter of the law are blatantly breached.

¤ The setting up by law of MEPA's internal auditor was, prima facie, a good idea. This has however practically replaced the Ombudsman's role as regards MEPA, as all complaints by MEPA received by the Ombudsman are not really being investigated by his office but are being referred to the MEPA internal auditor. While the Ombudsman reports to Parliament and also publishes his most noteworthy decisions, the reports and recommendations of MEPA's internal auditor are made to the MEPA Board for any necessary action and they are not available to the public. The responsible Minister has even refrained from laying these reports on the Table of the House of Representatives when asked to do so by an Opposition MP.

Any reform of MEPA that continues to thwart transparency for the sake of political expediency will not get this country anywhere. Transparency and accountability have to be paramount, with naming and shaming the only tool to control abuses.

This is, perhaps, where I am in full agreement with Astrid Vella who reacted to a passing remark I made in my last opinion piece in this paper ("MEPA and urban regeneration", April 9) with a vehement, misguided attack against me ("Bash the well-intentioned, ignore the abuser", April 16). As the Bard would put it, "methinks she doth protest too much!"

Apart from the fact that Ms Vella's interpretation of the words 'alleged' and 'professional' are very different form that in my dictionaries, her statement that she had declared the position of her residence in relation to that of the site of the proposed demolition that raised her ire "on every television station of the land" confirms my impression that such a declaration was never made in any of her innumerable contributions to the press.

Contrary to what Ms Vella implies, I have already commented in this column on the presence of practising architects on the DCC ("Blowing in the wind", June 19, 2005), but Ms Vella is probably unaware of this since I had not made my opinion known "on every television station of the land"!

Ms Vella's biggest slur in my regard was the wild untruth that I have access to the "studied judgments" of the Heritage Advisory Council (HAC) while ordinary citizens are illegally denied access to these reports. I can categorically declare that I have never seen any such "studied judgments" except for recommendations (actually diktats without any attempt at justification) transmitted to me by Planning Officers requesting me to amend proposals I had submitted on behalf of my private clients.

As if was not enough, she also defended the HAC by insulting it, stating that "once external pressure is excluded", the HAC gives "very studied judgments". Unlike Ms Vella, I have no confidence in people whose judgments change according to whether they have "external pressure" or not.

Ms Vella defends herself with self-righteous indignation by claiming to being victimised because she is "well-intentioned". Even suicide bombers are well-intentioned. Has she forgotten the wisdom of the adage that the way to hell is paved with good intentions?

Finally, may I take the liberty of quoting myself? In my piece "Blowing in the wind", I had written: "Wherever there is human activity, there is bound to be disagreement. More so in planning issues where conflicting conclusions can be reached through perfectly logical and sensible reasoning. Planning will always be a matter of compromise, and compromise will always be refused by fundamentalists who want to impose their values on others and on society at large. That is why planning issues are inherently a constant source of controversy all over the world."

And that is why both the planning process and those who criticise it must be constantly transparent all the way.

micfal@maltanet.net